Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This is so very wrong. Very sad thinking, and pushing my personal tolerance limit. Gilbert On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 08:31 PM, Allan Wafkowski wrote: > Peter, it's much more simple. Newspaper photography doesn't require > finesse. It just requires pictures. I've seen so many pictures of kids > with bloated bellies and flies, I forget who shot what, and why. I no > longer care. Newspaper photography has upgraded itself into > photojournalism, and along with the name change came a new-found worth. > They now think of themselves as changing the world through their > images. Two problems with that thought are: 1) Photojournalism has > changed almost nothing. (2 Photojournalists are just as apt to be > jackasses as bright, open human beings. What photojournalism has going > for it is that it has become a sacred cow. > > One would be hard pressed to find empirical proof that photojournalism > has had any profound effect on the world. One can find ample proof that > art has profoundly changed the world. One need only look to the > 1960s-1970s. The music, art, and literature played a profound role in > changing American and European culture. It wasn't politics, and it > wasn't newspaper photography. Five years of Disco changed the world > more than 90 years of photojournalism. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html